5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly withdrew her application has not been satisfactorily established by concrete evidence. x x x [I]t is incumbent upon the party who asserts a fact [to prove the same]. More significantly, respondent Consolacion “Marla” Nahas never denied [Olarte’s claim] that it was [Nahas] who interviewed her. It is basic that mere [allegation] is neither equivalent to proof nor evidence. [25] Later in her Memorandum of Appeal with the NLRC, Nahas repudiated her earlier admission and averred that Olarte did not at all apply with PETRA. While still maintaining that she interviewed Olarte, she now claimed to have done so when she was still connected with Royal Dream as a mere employee. It is quite obvious that Nahas started singing a different song, so to speak, after the Labor Arbiter did not buy her claim that Olarte withdrew her application with PETRA due to her utter failure to support the same. And with her still seeming inability to produce the alleged withdrawal request before the NLRC, the most convenient way out is for her to claim that Olarte did not at all apply with PETRA. While Nahas attempted to bolster this new allegation by averring that PETRA was issued a license only on July 16, 1999 thereby making it impossible for Olarte to apply in May 1999, the same, however, hardly convinces. Aside from the lack of any evidence showing the date of the POEA’s issuance of license to PETRA, the fact that it was yet to be issued a license does not preclude the possibility that it was already accepting applicants on behalf of Royal Dream which at that time already possesses the required license. This explains why the accomplished bio-data of Olarte dated May 18, 1999 bears the letterhead of Royal Dream and also why the pertinent documents from POEA and OWWA26 reflect the said agency as Olarte’s local agency. Neither does the unsupported averment of Nahas before the NLRC that she was previously connected with Royal Dream as a former employee help her cause. For one, she could have easily submitted a certificate of employment from Royal Dream showing that she was a mere employee of the latter during the time material to this case. But she failed to do so. It must be stressed “that he who alleges must prove.”[27] Clearly, Nahas’ vacillating from one story to another and not being able to support them is nothing but a mere ruse to evade the lawful claims of Olarte. This cannot be tolerated. It has been held that “[a] party will not be allowed to make a mockery of justice by taking inconsistent positions which, if allowed, would result in brazen deception.”[28] Inconsistent and unsupported as they are, the labor tribunals and the CA correctly rejected the contentions of Nahas. Anent the assertion that Royal Dream was not served with summons, it must be stressed that Olarte had categorically declared at the outset that it was in the office of PETRA/Royal Dream at Room 401, Gochangco Building, T.M. Kalaw, Ermita, Manila where she applied for work as domestic helper, was interviewed, and made to sign an elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/56962 7/10